Australian Defence "Boost" - ha!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hot and Dry
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-a-frozo, cheap shots like that are uncalled for!
I don't know what aircraft community you are from, but I have flown a number of different aircraft types, including fighters, helicopters and trainers, and can assure you that the mix of humble/egotistical/funny/introverted/extroverted etc pilots is similar in each aircraft community.
I don't know what aircraft community you are from, but I have flown a number of different aircraft types, including fighters, helicopters and trainers, and can assure you that the mix of humble/egotistical/funny/introverted/extroverted etc pilots is similar in each aircraft community.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"ftrplt" - a somewhat ironic name - thanks for the lesson, I'm obviously out of my league.
Investing in the F-15E at this point of time will find us in the same situation not so far down the track with a 3rd generation airframe coupled with 80s era sensors. The F-15 will not guarantee a greater than unity kill/loss advantage against Su30s (the aircraft currently being procured by China and India), which is a big factor the government is looking for. We can't afford to lose aircraft in a one-for-one situation. We don't have the capability to throw aircraft up and not have them come back.
The F-15 has equivalent range because it can fly high and fight its way in and out? For the regional scenario, there's going to be a lot of sea between us and them (there's more support for the AWDs) so regardless - both aircraft can fly high, and even the F-15 isnt guaranteed a trip back against Su30s. There is only one substitute for fuel load carried by an aircraft, and that's aerial refuelling.
Aircraft are limited to subsonic speeds when carrying stores? That's ****ing brilliant that is! Why didn't they think of that one before they designed it? Why on earth then would they have put a swing wing on it? To say that speed is irrelevant is ridiculous - high speeds get bombs on target quickly, and increases mission rates.
The main problem the government has found for leasing F-15Es as a stop-gap is that there aren't sufficient numbers available. The production line has stopped, and the USAF is itself tight on airframes and are reluctant (for want of a better word) to spare some.
Investing in the F-15E at this point of time will find us in the same situation not so far down the track with a 3rd generation airframe coupled with 80s era sensors. The F-15 will not guarantee a greater than unity kill/loss advantage against Su30s (the aircraft currently being procured by China and India), which is a big factor the government is looking for. We can't afford to lose aircraft in a one-for-one situation. We don't have the capability to throw aircraft up and not have them come back.
The F-15 has equivalent range because it can fly high and fight its way in and out? For the regional scenario, there's going to be a lot of sea between us and them (there's more support for the AWDs) so regardless - both aircraft can fly high, and even the F-15 isnt guaranteed a trip back against Su30s. There is only one substitute for fuel load carried by an aircraft, and that's aerial refuelling.
Aircraft are limited to subsonic speeds when carrying stores? That's ****ing brilliant that is! Why didn't they think of that one before they designed it? Why on earth then would they have put a swing wing on it? To say that speed is irrelevant is ridiculous - high speeds get bombs on target quickly, and increases mission rates.
The main problem the government has found for leasing F-15Es as a stop-gap is that there aren't sufficient numbers available. The production line has stopped, and the USAF is itself tight on airframes and are reluctant (for want of a better word) to spare some.
Citizen
I was referencing an F111 counter air capability-whether that be F15's or "other" platforms.
The justification of Aegis destroyers by the Navy would be the support of an amphibious lodgement. That FFG is an insufficient capability would suggest an area threatened by fighter-bombers in numbers and with a possible stand off anti-shipping capability.
If this is the war the RAN is planning to fight, the loss of an airborne long range strike capability has now unbalanced the ADF.
Sadly, I think the ADF will be forced to make do with P3 land attack missile capability. But in the environment you described to justify AEGIS- enemy air superiority- the P3 capability insufficient.
With joint US op's the catchcry, why double up on expensive and relatively inflexible capabilities?
Why is a shipborne capability of the JSF been so quickly written off considering the "need" for such an expensive shipborne anti-air capability re AEGIS?
Rivalries, Admirals' Barge, Unions and shipbuilding lobbies?
On your last remark- the requirment for an AEGIS and the deployment of large numbers of troops overseas IS insane.
Without a long range RAAF counter-air platform that can survive in the environment that requires AEGIS ( no air superiority) at the top end. Aswell as an inexpensive P3 force multiplier at the bottom end.
I was referencing an F111 counter air capability-whether that be F15's or "other" platforms.
The justification of Aegis destroyers by the Navy would be the support of an amphibious lodgement. That FFG is an insufficient capability would suggest an area threatened by fighter-bombers in numbers and with a possible stand off anti-shipping capability.
If this is the war the RAN is planning to fight, the loss of an airborne long range strike capability has now unbalanced the ADF.
Sadly, I think the ADF will be forced to make do with P3 land attack missile capability. But in the environment you described to justify AEGIS- enemy air superiority- the P3 capability insufficient.
With joint US op's the catchcry, why double up on expensive and relatively inflexible capabilities?
Why is a shipborne capability of the JSF been so quickly written off considering the "need" for such an expensive shipborne anti-air capability re AEGIS?
Rivalries, Admirals' Barge, Unions and shipbuilding lobbies?
On your last remark- the requirment for an AEGIS and the deployment of large numbers of troops overseas IS insane.
Without a long range RAAF counter-air platform that can survive in the environment that requires AEGIS ( no air superiority) at the top end. Aswell as an inexpensive P3 force multiplier at the bottom end.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-A-F,
You are of course quite right. The RAAF should be running all rotary aviation. I for one, and I am sure I speak for most army pilots, would welcome the 1200 early marks on a Friday
You are of course quite right. The RAAF should be running all rotary aviation. I for one, and I am sure I speak for most army pilots, would welcome the 1200 early marks on a Friday
Citizen,
the F15E (actually F15E, S and K and maybe a few others, havent kept track) production line is still open, and I didnt say anything about leasing.
I didnt say speed is irrelevant, I said the weapons carried were the limiting factor (on ingress obviously), ergo the F15E and the F111 will have the same ingress speec +/- a few minutes.
If you believe the F15E is equipped with 80's era sensors then you are proving you dont know much. The only thing that is an old design is the airframe, which just happens to be bloody good.
The F111 struggles above 25000ft (with weapons), it is a low level optimised platform.
I would be happy to go up against an SU-30 in an F15E any day, god help an F111 against it. It would not get anywhere near the target. The updated F18 with AEW&C will struggle against SU-30, but Id bet a RAAF trained pilot against any Asian operator anyday. The F15E is a better A/A platform than the F18, period dot.
You say an F15E is no good now, Im saying the F35 wont be available on time, when the F111 is dead and the F18 operationally restricted. From 2010 the RAAF is going to be wheezing big time when it comes to firepower.
PAF, love ya work.
the F15E (actually F15E, S and K and maybe a few others, havent kept track) production line is still open, and I didnt say anything about leasing.
I didnt say speed is irrelevant, I said the weapons carried were the limiting factor (on ingress obviously), ergo the F15E and the F111 will have the same ingress speec +/- a few minutes.
If you believe the F15E is equipped with 80's era sensors then you are proving you dont know much. The only thing that is an old design is the airframe, which just happens to be bloody good.
The F111 struggles above 25000ft (with weapons), it is a low level optimised platform.
I would be happy to go up against an SU-30 in an F15E any day, god help an F111 against it. It would not get anywhere near the target. The updated F18 with AEW&C will struggle against SU-30, but Id bet a RAAF trained pilot against any Asian operator anyday. The F15E is a better A/A platform than the F18, period dot.
You say an F15E is no good now, Im saying the F35 wont be available on time, when the F111 is dead and the F18 operationally restricted. From 2010 the RAAF is going to be wheezing big time when it comes to firepower.
PAF, love ya work.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply not true that external weapons carriage is limited to subsonic. For example, Mk84 is cleared to M1.3 on the Pig. The GBU-15s launched by USAAF Pigs to stop the Iraqis pumping oil into the sea in GW1 were also released supersonic (and presumably travelled a fair way as a result...).
Agree that the Pig is not flash above 25000 - subsonic. Supersonic is another matter altogether - but there goes your range of course.
Otherwise I reckon ftrplt is pretty much right.
Agree that the Pig is not flash above 25000 - subsonic. Supersonic is another matter altogether - but there goes your range of course.
Otherwise I reckon ftrplt is pretty much right.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
griffinblack,
Unfortunately it's usually the Admin buildings that empty at 12
But you do know why RAAF pilots stay in 5 star hotels don't you? It's because they don't have 6 star hotels
The RAAF has always been between a rock and a hard place though. The Navy and Army can make inroads into the aviation environment, but other than ADGies (which you can have if you want
) The RAAF can't make inroads into shipping or infantry / tanks etc.
PAF
Unfortunately it's usually the Admin buildings that empty at 12
But you do know why RAAF pilots stay in 5 star hotels don't you? It's because they don't have 6 star hotels
The RAAF has always been between a rock and a hard place though. The Navy and Army can make inroads into the aviation environment, but other than ADGies (which you can have if you want
) The RAAF can't make inroads into shipping or infantry / tanks etc.PAF
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk today, dunnunda tomorrow....
Age: 44
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a military man, but somewhat of a amateur historian, haven't you inherited the "Pom" problem?
That is to say the government sees Australia as a Regional power (rightly or wrongly) and thus feels the need to balance the forces of land, sea and air.
Britain has tried that since the days of the Blenheim/Peninsular onwards, and been pro-active in intervening in European conflicts and the balance of power.
It also has a coastline, which 63 years ago, just survived a sustained assualt by a far superior enemy against it's shores. Why? Due to the strength of the Royal Navy, and the ability of the Air Force to survive against superior numbers over its own soil (and a huge bit of luck and the weather!)
Now I appreciate how big the coastline is (as said, it is a continent, not 160 miles of SE England), but the torres straights are a bit wider than the English Channel - reducing the range of enemy insurgent airforces - unless carrier borne of course.....
Now maintaining a long range strike option is very important (1940's whirlybomber/rhubarb raids) to help reduce threats, but the important fight in any aggressive conflict against Austalia would be to stop any landing and then the destruction of the RAAF. Would that not mean that the best "possible" solution would be a fast, agile mutirole air superiority fighter, able to operate off the highway - and yes, I have travelled on one or two north Austrtalian roads! Something like the Saab Gripen? If attacked at home, the RAAF pilots would have less distance to travel prior to engaging, and hence would be able to manouvere with less regard to fuel consumption?
Even our lot have seen that we actually need an "aircraft" carrier, not a ship just for Harriers and Sea Kings. No AEW almost (as in loosing the war, not just a lt of warships) cost Britain dear in '82 and if the Harrier retires prior to JSF coming into service, then I'm sure there'll be another metal dispute or somelike involving "Las Malvinas". It sounds like the RAAF might have a similar problem on it's hands if the gov. don't act soon - 6 years to obtain, convert and train on a new type, without loss of deterrent/capability?
Maybe the Australian Government and Chiefs of Staff need to look at the budget and then prioritise with Defence (it is the ministry of defence over there, isn't it?) first, then worry about what the US are advocating in terms of war on terror.
Shouldn't the priortiy be RAAF/Navy, then Air Defence, then the Army? Can't see too many tank battles happening in the outback or in the jungle.
Again - not a military person. Just someone who thinks that history needs to be looked at and then put into perspective for the next conflict. The British Army is very good at loosing the first battle, but then goes on to win the war - with huge support from the navy, and the new (in historical terms) important factor of local air superiority.
Should the argument not be what they buy, but the proportion/neccesity of funds going to each service?
Waiting to be enlightened/corrected - very good topic though.
That is to say the government sees Australia as a Regional power (rightly or wrongly) and thus feels the need to balance the forces of land, sea and air.
Britain has tried that since the days of the Blenheim/Peninsular onwards, and been pro-active in intervening in European conflicts and the balance of power.
It also has a coastline, which 63 years ago, just survived a sustained assualt by a far superior enemy against it's shores. Why? Due to the strength of the Royal Navy, and the ability of the Air Force to survive against superior numbers over its own soil (and a huge bit of luck and the weather!)
Now I appreciate how big the coastline is (as said, it is a continent, not 160 miles of SE England), but the torres straights are a bit wider than the English Channel - reducing the range of enemy insurgent airforces - unless carrier borne of course.....
Now maintaining a long range strike option is very important (1940's whirlybomber/rhubarb raids) to help reduce threats, but the important fight in any aggressive conflict against Austalia would be to stop any landing and then the destruction of the RAAF. Would that not mean that the best "possible" solution would be a fast, agile mutirole air superiority fighter, able to operate off the highway - and yes, I have travelled on one or two north Austrtalian roads! Something like the Saab Gripen? If attacked at home, the RAAF pilots would have less distance to travel prior to engaging, and hence would be able to manouvere with less regard to fuel consumption?
Even our lot have seen that we actually need an "aircraft" carrier, not a ship just for Harriers and Sea Kings. No AEW almost (as in loosing the war, not just a lt of warships) cost Britain dear in '82 and if the Harrier retires prior to JSF coming into service, then I'm sure there'll be another metal dispute or somelike involving "Las Malvinas". It sounds like the RAAF might have a similar problem on it's hands if the gov. don't act soon - 6 years to obtain, convert and train on a new type, without loss of deterrent/capability?
Maybe the Australian Government and Chiefs of Staff need to look at the budget and then prioritise with Defence (it is the ministry of defence over there, isn't it?) first, then worry about what the US are advocating in terms of war on terror.
Shouldn't the priortiy be RAAF/Navy, then Air Defence, then the Army? Can't see too many tank battles happening in the outback or in the jungle.
Again - not a military person. Just someone who thinks that history needs to be looked at and then put into perspective for the next conflict. The British Army is very good at loosing the first battle, but then goes on to win the war - with huge support from the navy, and the new (in historical terms) important factor of local air superiority.
Should the argument not be what they buy, but the proportion/neccesity of funds going to each service?
Waiting to be enlightened/corrected - very good topic though.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points wesel.
However, the aus government through the white paper has decided we will no longer posture our defence force solely on the ‘defence of Australia’. This then obligates us to have a balanced defence force that can operate in a coalition environment.
Much has been written on our use of specialist or niche forces in recent conflict – such as the SAS, navy etc. I think the general conclusion is that this philosophy is counter productive in that by ensuring we are only able to provide certain niche capabilities, we actually sacrifice broader capability. In other words we transfer support and other higher cost functions to our allies. This is counter productive.
I believe your assertion that we are attempting to be a regional power is probably a perception rather than a reality. I am sure the US would like us to be so. But the reality is that many of our neighbours don’t feel that aus is even part of SE Asia and many of them are numerically and in some cases capability wise superior to us.
So, after all that, I believe the aus government and the Chiefs have decided on a ‘balanced’ approach. I tend to agree with this philosophy given the context of my discussion above.
Having said that, as I have stated above – we should never get rid of our long-range strike capability. I don’t care if that remains F111 or a replacement or indeed PGM.
However, the aus government through the white paper has decided we will no longer posture our defence force solely on the ‘defence of Australia’. This then obligates us to have a balanced defence force that can operate in a coalition environment.
Much has been written on our use of specialist or niche forces in recent conflict – such as the SAS, navy etc. I think the general conclusion is that this philosophy is counter productive in that by ensuring we are only able to provide certain niche capabilities, we actually sacrifice broader capability. In other words we transfer support and other higher cost functions to our allies. This is counter productive.
I believe your assertion that we are attempting to be a regional power is probably a perception rather than a reality. I am sure the US would like us to be so. But the reality is that many of our neighbours don’t feel that aus is even part of SE Asia and many of them are numerically and in some cases capability wise superior to us.
So, after all that, I believe the aus government and the Chiefs have decided on a ‘balanced’ approach. I tend to agree with this philosophy given the context of my discussion above.
Having said that, as I have stated above – we should never get rid of our long-range strike capability. I don’t care if that remains F111 or a replacement or indeed PGM.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that are questioning the AEGIS system and associated weapons, you may want to read up on the advanced trials the USA have been doing with it,in Janes of course.
Then apply that to SE Asia and ponder, as for the AP3-C more weapons and some self defence would be good.
Charlie sends
Then apply that to SE Asia and ponder, as for the AP3-C more weapons and some self defence would be good.
Charlie sends
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres some food for thought, from what has been brought to my attention, the USN in the year 2005 will be paying off DDG's USS Yorktown CG-48, USS Vincennes CG-49 and USS Valley Forge CG-50. Apparently these ships are the only Ticonderoga Class without Tomahawk!!! Can someone confirm that??
I will believe it when I see it though, especially the Yorktown. Whats bizzare is that the USS Yorketown was the first USN ship in this class to be converted to being a "smart ship".In December 1995 the Smart Ship Project Office was created and USS Yorktown, was chosen as the prototype Smart Ship. The “Smart Ship” Program aims at reducing manning while maintaining readiness through technological installations and philosophy changes. The core technologies installed in Yorktown are a 16 workstation fiber optic Local Area Network (LAN), Integrated Bridge System (IBS), Voyage Management System (VMS), Damage Control System(DCS), Integrated Conditioning and Assessment System (ICAS), HYDRA wireless communication system, and Standard Machinery Control System (SMCS).
Personally, I think they would be great for the RAN. These ships were built with a payoff date of around 2025. Still a few years left in them. Would be a formidable weapons platform, making good use of a combination Sea Hawk and Seasprite.I realise the RAN has been burnt badly in the last 10 years with all the bad press from its Collins Class projects, Seasprites and the worst purchase decision in the last 20 years, those two ( ex-USN) absolute rust buckets HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla. Therefore, the RAN has been treading carefully.
Question, does anyone know if the above DDG's have "evolved Sea Sparrow"?
CG-47 Ticonderoga-class
Specifications
Builders Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG-47-50, CG 52-57, 59,62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG-51,58,60-61,63-64,67,70
Propulsion 4 General Electric LM-2500 Gas Turbine Engines (80,000 Shaft Horsepower)
2 Controllable-Reversible Pitch Propellers
2 Rudders
Length Overall Length: 567 ft
Waterline Length: 529 ft
Beam Extreme Beam: 55 ft
Waterline Beam: 55 ft
Draft 33 ft Maximum Navigational Draft
24 ft Draft [keel]]
23 ft Draft Limit
Displacement Light Displacement: 7103 tons
Full Displacement: 9957 tons
Dead Weight: 2854 tons
Speed 30 plus knots
Aircraft Two SH-2 Seasprite (LAMPS) in CG 47-48
Two SH-60 Sea Hawk (LAMPS III)
Armament 1 MK 7 AEGIS Weapons System
2 MK26 missile launcher (CG47-51) or
2 MK41 vertical launching system (CG52-73)
0 VLS Cells
127 VLS Cells Standard Missile (MR)
Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
Tomahawk ASM/LAM
2 Harpoon Missile Quad-Canister Launchers
2 MK 32 MOD 14 Torpedo Tubes - 6 MK-46 torpedoes
2 MK 45 5"/54-Caliber Lightweight Gun Mounts
1 MK 15 MOD 2 Close-in-Weapons Systems (CIWS) (2 Mounts)
1 MK 36 MOD 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off-Board Chaff System
2 50-Caliber Machine Guns
Combat Systems Earlier Ships
1 AN/SPY-1A Radar (Four Arrays) (CG47-59)
1 AN/SPS-49 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
1 AN/SQS-53A Hull Mounted SONAR (CG47-55)
1 AN/SLQ-32(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite Later Ships
1 AN/SPY-1B(V) Multi-Function Radar (CG59-73)
1 AN/SPS-49(V)8 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-64(V)9 Navigation Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
1 AN/SQQ-89(V) 6 ASW Combat System
1 AN/SQS-53B Hull Mounted SONAR (CG56-67)
1 AN/SQS-53C Hull Mounted SONAR (CG68-73)
1 AN/SQR-19B Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS)
1 AN/SLQ-32A(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite
Crew 24 Officers, 340 Enlisted
Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average $28,000,000 [source: [FY1996 VAMOSC]
I will believe it when I see it though, especially the Yorktown. Whats bizzare is that the USS Yorketown was the first USN ship in this class to be converted to being a "smart ship".In December 1995 the Smart Ship Project Office was created and USS Yorktown, was chosen as the prototype Smart Ship. The “Smart Ship” Program aims at reducing manning while maintaining readiness through technological installations and philosophy changes. The core technologies installed in Yorktown are a 16 workstation fiber optic Local Area Network (LAN), Integrated Bridge System (IBS), Voyage Management System (VMS), Damage Control System(DCS), Integrated Conditioning and Assessment System (ICAS), HYDRA wireless communication system, and Standard Machinery Control System (SMCS).
Personally, I think they would be great for the RAN. These ships were built with a payoff date of around 2025. Still a few years left in them. Would be a formidable weapons platform, making good use of a combination Sea Hawk and Seasprite.I realise the RAN has been burnt badly in the last 10 years with all the bad press from its Collins Class projects, Seasprites and the worst purchase decision in the last 20 years, those two ( ex-USN) absolute rust buckets HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla. Therefore, the RAN has been treading carefully.
Question, does anyone know if the above DDG's have "evolved Sea Sparrow"?
CG-47 Ticonderoga-class
Specifications
Builders Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG-47-50, CG 52-57, 59,62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG-51,58,60-61,63-64,67,70
Propulsion 4 General Electric LM-2500 Gas Turbine Engines (80,000 Shaft Horsepower)
2 Controllable-Reversible Pitch Propellers
2 Rudders
Length Overall Length: 567 ft
Waterline Length: 529 ft
Beam Extreme Beam: 55 ft
Waterline Beam: 55 ft
Draft 33 ft Maximum Navigational Draft
24 ft Draft [keel]]
23 ft Draft Limit
Displacement Light Displacement: 7103 tons
Full Displacement: 9957 tons
Dead Weight: 2854 tons
Speed 30 plus knots
Aircraft Two SH-2 Seasprite (LAMPS) in CG 47-48
Two SH-60 Sea Hawk (LAMPS III)
Armament 1 MK 7 AEGIS Weapons System
2 MK26 missile launcher (CG47-51) or
2 MK41 vertical launching system (CG52-73)
0 VLS Cells
127 VLS Cells Standard Missile (MR)
Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
Tomahawk ASM/LAM
2 Harpoon Missile Quad-Canister Launchers
2 MK 32 MOD 14 Torpedo Tubes - 6 MK-46 torpedoes
2 MK 45 5"/54-Caliber Lightweight Gun Mounts
1 MK 15 MOD 2 Close-in-Weapons Systems (CIWS) (2 Mounts)
1 MK 36 MOD 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off-Board Chaff System
2 50-Caliber Machine Guns
Combat Systems Earlier Ships
1 AN/SPY-1A Radar (Four Arrays) (CG47-59)
1 AN/SPS-49 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
1 AN/SQS-53A Hull Mounted SONAR (CG47-55)
1 AN/SLQ-32(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite Later Ships
1 AN/SPY-1B(V) Multi-Function Radar (CG59-73)
1 AN/SPS-49(V)8 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-64(V)9 Navigation Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
1 AN/SQQ-89(V) 6 ASW Combat System
1 AN/SQS-53B Hull Mounted SONAR (CG56-67)
1 AN/SQS-53C Hull Mounted SONAR (CG68-73)
1 AN/SQR-19B Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS)
1 AN/SLQ-32A(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite
Crew 24 Officers, 340 Enlisted
Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average $28,000,000 [source: [FY1996 VAMOSC]
Last edited by wessex19; 14th Nov 2003 at 11:53.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article in todays Courier Mail. It states that the recently released Defence Capability Review will result in a defence deficit of $1 billion or greater. So the bottom line is that the defence Chiefs have been promised all these lovely toys but no funding has yet been allocated to the purchase of said toys. Will this be an election issue?
This kind of reminds me of Army 21. Sounded great but was never likely or achievable.
This kind of reminds me of Army 21. Sounded great but was never likely or achievable.
M1 Abrams for the Army and Aegis warships for the Navy.
The maritime and armour threat must be very high. I assume the air threat comparable?
But in 2010 the RAAF will have under 50 operational 20yo fighter-bombers.
A leased 18-24 Strike Eagles would have made sense. I know they are in short supply but the Americans can be accomodating with allies - the supply of F4s to Israel at a time they were needed in Vietnam etc.
Disband a Hornet squadron, retire F111's, leased F15E's and you have a credible strike-fighter force until 2015/JSF.
The maritime and armour threat must be very high. I assume the air threat comparable?
But in 2010 the RAAF will have under 50 operational 20yo fighter-bombers.
A leased 18-24 Strike Eagles would have made sense. I know they are in short supply but the Americans can be accomodating with allies - the supply of F4s to Israel at a time they were needed in Vietnam etc.
Disband a Hornet squadron, retire F111's, leased F15E's and you have a credible strike-fighter force until 2015/JSF.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 15th Nov 2003 at 23:45.
take it further; buy 75 F15E's (the line is still open), retire the F111's, retire all F18's, wait for the second generation F35 when its mature and actually works.
Stop this insane need for buying the first generation of everything.
The F35 will be late; its just a matter of how long.
Stop this insane need for buying the first generation of everything.
The F35 will be late; its just a matter of how long.
Hmmm!
The plot thickens.
We are now facing a ballistic missile threat and joining the US in son of Star Wars.
A more credible justification for an Aegis capability?
I still don't understand 2010- Army M1 Abrams and Navy Aegis destroyers. But the RAAF will struggle to field 50 F18s.
2010 sounds bleak. A ballistic missile capable enemy countered with Aegis and an MBT threat countered with Abrams. The threat perceived must have an equivalant air power capability. Justifying an interim fighter?
F15E?
The plot thickens.
We are now facing a ballistic missile threat and joining the US in son of Star Wars.
A more credible justification for an Aegis capability?
I still don't understand 2010- Army M1 Abrams and Navy Aegis destroyers. But the RAAF will struggle to field 50 F18s.
2010 sounds bleak. A ballistic missile capable enemy countered with Aegis and an MBT threat countered with Abrams. The threat perceived must have an equivalant air power capability. Justifying an interim fighter?
F15E?
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 5th Dec 2003 at 12:29.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some ignorance and some professional comment, and some combinations of the above.
Who ever really thinks Karlo has much of a clue?
RIP the Pig. - pity it never got AGM-130.
F-15E NOW! Tick - VG!! - Yes it does have state of the art stuff on-board!!
F-35 later. maybe after the turmoil of teething problems during its intro.
....and who asked about why fast aircraft cannot deliver weapons very fast - 'cos the weapons that the fast aircraft were designed to carry are not allowed in Oz!!
Small point of order...... Yes Korea was the [until recent] last fighter operational deployment, BUT Vietnam was the [until recent] last RAAF bomb dropped.
Records will show however, that the RAAF transport ops in warmer climates are statistically doing very well - delivering [with the few ASD models around] larger percentages of cargo per airframe in theatre than other allies by an order of magnitude, and being praised for their flexibility in doing same, and utilising procedures that maximise tactical soundness.
Agree with ftrplt - Oz trained crews can whip 'near neighbour' dudes - even if they fly third and a half generation MiG & Sukois.
PS
Give the RAAF the rotaries back.
Who ever really thinks Karlo has much of a clue?
RIP the Pig. - pity it never got AGM-130.
F-15E NOW! Tick - VG!! - Yes it does have state of the art stuff on-board!!
F-35 later. maybe after the turmoil of teething problems during its intro.
....and who asked about why fast aircraft cannot deliver weapons very fast - 'cos the weapons that the fast aircraft were designed to carry are not allowed in Oz!!
Small point of order...... Yes Korea was the [until recent] last fighter operational deployment, BUT Vietnam was the [until recent] last RAAF bomb dropped.
Records will show however, that the RAAF transport ops in warmer climates are statistically doing very well - delivering [with the few ASD models around] larger percentages of cargo per airframe in theatre than other allies by an order of magnitude, and being praised for their flexibility in doing same, and utilising procedures that maximise tactical soundness.
Agree with ftrplt - Oz trained crews can whip 'near neighbour' dudes - even if they fly third and a half generation MiG & Sukois.
PS
Give the RAAF the rotaries back.
L J R
Like the RAAF Wing Commander waxing his moustache looking over the flightline of Wirraways- " The yellow man and his Zero no threat".
I see the glowing capability loss idnetified in the above comments being addressed in it's cheapest form!
Hornets and cruise missiles.
Interesting times! An escalation of that capability in the region makes Australia's natural defence-distance-less of an advantage and more of a headache.
Like the RAAF Wing Commander waxing his moustache looking over the flightline of Wirraways- " The yellow man and his Zero no threat".
I see the glowing capability loss idnetified in the above comments being addressed in it's cheapest form!
Hornets and cruise missiles.
Interesting times! An escalation of that capability in the region makes Australia's natural defence-distance-less of an advantage and more of a headache.
AGM-130 on the F111 - that would have been to easy and it would have worked!
Much better to try for 5 years plus with AGM-142 and spend a few million in the process. It must make a good paperweight for the generals in Amberley!
Just another example of brilliant procurement.
Much better to try for 5 years plus with AGM-142 and spend a few million in the process. It must make a good paperweight for the generals in Amberley!
Just another example of brilliant procurement.